Joana Morais - The PJ will conduct the questioning that was requested by the English police - 14/8/2013

Ok Thanks.
Got it.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Gerry McCann: If you measured it directly from the back of the apartment there’s a straight line to where we’re dining, it’s only 50 metres
Interviewer: 50 Meters?
Gerry McCann: Er..that, that’s a direct line...
Kate McCann interrupts: 49 point 4 on Google if you want to be really specific
KM shows the use of the internet, with the word "Google" early in the interview. The reader should be considering if the internet is a sensitive topic to KM.
Gerry McCann: But the proximity was very close

The word, "but" often refutes that which came before it. Here, we do not know what would be refuted by GM since they appear to agree about the distance, but only in a "direct" line and not actual access.
_______________________________________________________

So the 'direct' line would mean exiting, and leaving unlocked, the patio door, climbing over balcony fence, dropping into garden, leaping over 6 foot bushes and dropping down into the alleyway in front of apartment, climbing over OC 7 foot perimeter wall dropping into the OC , swimming through the pool, good training for a triathlete, climbing out to be near to Tapas restaurant, walking a further few metres to their BOOKED table!

Why not just go out of gate to 5A and walk down to OC entrance and follow path inside to the restaurant!
LOL'

Oh yeah, now i remember, THAT way to the restaurant TABLE would be at least 125 metres!

tigger wrote:The cost is a factor in view of the absolute rubbish spouted by SY so far. 

This elite team coming hard on the heels of the 'soothing couple' and various other pantomime characters is not inspiring confidence. 

Why this publicity? So they are seen to be doing something for the money and time which could be better spent on other cases. 
You may add to these costs those incurred for the brief performance on behalf of  Kerry Needham. Which imo was purely to make it look like routine procedure for all children missing abroad.

Eta:  Assange is a waste of time,  space and money  as well - this smug creature will have to sort it out for himself.

  

T4two wrote:

tigger wrote:The cost is a factor in view of the absolute rubbish spouted by SY so far. 

This elite team coming hard on the heels of the 'soothing couple' and various other pantomime characters is not inspiring confidence. 

Why this publicity? So they are seen to be doing something for the money and time which could be better spent on other cases. 
You may add to these costs those incurred for the brief performance on behalf of  Kerry Needham. Which imo was purely to make it look like routine procedure for all children missing abroad.

Eta:  Assange is a waste of time,  space and money  as well - this smug creature will have to sort it out for himself.

 In a civilized society the cost of investigating a crime should never ever be a factor in deciding whether that crime should be properly invistigated or not, for the simple reason that if the cost of investigation were to be a factor, those involved in the case of a missing person for example, could adopt a strategy of  purposely fomenting 'awareness' to generate lead after lead from around the world and of using the media to spread false information, thus making the cost of investigating and solving the crime prohibitive.

I guess you have an example of this blackmail in mind?

It will be very interesting to see how these interviews will be conducted and what rights the people of interest will be given. IIRC in Portugal you cannot refuse to answer questions as a witness, but you can as an arguido. Since the investigation has not been reopened what status will these persons of interest have? Can they refuse to show up at all? Again IIRC the rogatory interviews in the UK were all voluntary. Will that be the case here too?

Portugal's laws are based on the Napoleonic code. As we have seen it has strict rules about how long someone can be investigated and how long a case can stay open, and what is needed to reopen a case. So suppose through these interviews they identify an "abductor" wouldn't his/her lawyer have a field day having all that information being thrown out?

I remember when the police were digging - and finding bodies- in the Fred West case that the cost of the operation DID come into it.
I believe Gloucestershire police got some financial help but I remember reading that there was a limit on how far and for how long the digging could go on.
At the time I thought that they couldn't just stop searching if they ran out of money but maybe they can.

A couple of snippets about Dave's holiday in the algarve:

Cameron, who is staying in a friend’s luxury £3,000-a-week villa in the hills of Monchique—a secluded property surrounded by dense vegetation

The Camerons are accompanied by their three children – Nancy, 9, Arthur, 7, and Florence, 2 – and are guarded by more than a dozen security officers from Scotland Yard, providing 24-hour protection, as well as officers from the English and Portuguese secret service.

And recent visitors [to the Algarve] have included David and Victoria Beckham, Claudia Schiffer, Cristiano Ronaldo, José Mourinho, Hugh Grant, George Benson, Sir Alex Ferguson, Wayne Rooney, Alan Shearer , Ernie Els, Colin Montgomery, John McEnroe, Bjorn Borg and various members of the European royal families.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

jeanmonroe wrote:Ok Thanks.
Got it.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Gerry McCann: If you measured it directly from the back of the apartment there’s a straight line to where we’re dining, it’s only 50 metres
Interviewer: 50 Meters?
Gerry McCann: Er..that, that’s a direct line...
Kate McCann interrupts: 49 point 4 on Google if you want to be really specific
KM shows the use of the internet, with the word "Google" early in the interview. The reader should be considering if the internet is a sensitive topic to KM.
Gerry McCann: But the proximity was very close

The word, "but" often refutes that which came before it. Here, we do not know what would be refuted by GM since they appear to agree about the distance, but only in a "direct" line and not actual access.
_______________________________________________________

So the 'direct' line would mean exiting, and leaving unlocked, the patio door, climbing over balcony fence, dropping into garden, leaping over 6 foot bushes and dropping down into the alleyway in front of apartment, climbing over OC 7 foot perimeter wall dropping into the OC , swimming through the pool, good training for a triathlete, climbing out to be near to Tapas restaurant, walking a further few metres to their BOOKED table!

Why not just go out of gate to 5A and walk down to OC entrance and follow path inside to the restaurant!
LOL'

Oh yeah, now i remember, THAT way to the restaurant TABLE would be at least 125 metres!

Ah, but Gerry's just proved what a tremendous triathlete he is! All that practice years ago!

Proximity was very close .... in English that might mean it wasn't far? It was quite or very close to (a place). Gerry loves his official sounding words but does not appear to know what they mean, such as 'purport'  and in this case 'proximity' a qualifying term, not a person, object or location.

tigger wrote:The cost is a factor in view of the absolute rubbish spouted by SY so far. 

This elite team coming hard on the heels of the 'soothing couple' and various other pantomime characters is not inspiring confidence. 

Why this publicity? So they are seen to be doing something for the money and time which could be better spent on other cases. 
You may add to these costs those incurred for the brief performance on behalf of  Kerry Needham. Which imo was purely to make it look like routine procedure for all children missing abroad.

Eta:  Assange is a waste of time,  space and money  as well - this smug creature will have to sort it out for himself.

 Publicity? what publicity? by who?

First question: 
How many public statements have Scotland Yard made? 

Second question:
Why should you, I or the man next door receive a running commentary in a criminal investigation? 

If you, I or the man next door receive a running commentary, that also means that anyone potentially responsible for the crime will know exactly what the police are up to. 

If these people responsible are also slippery, have the most expensive lawyers available on the planet and the ability to retrofit any explanation out of thin air to counter evidence then if they knew what to expect in interviews, there would be no point in the interview. 

I think it is absolutely ridiculous expectation that anyone should know what is happening in a criminal investigation. With a perspective I share with T4Two money should not be a factor in investigating crime otherwise the people with the money and the power (which are the minority in society) could get away with anything they like. 

Scotland Yard have been watertight in their investigation otherwise the Mccann's would be lording over this that and the other? In dealing with people like the Mccann's they need to rule out every other possibly explanation for what happened. That will take time.

loopzdaloop wrote:

I think it is absolutely ridiculous expectation that anyone should know what is happening in a criminal investigation. With a perspective I share with T4Two money should not be a factor in investigating crime otherwise the people with the money and the power (which are the minority in society) could get away with anything they like. 

Scotland Yard have been watertight in their investigation otherwise the Mccann's would be lording over this that and the other? In dealing with people like the Mccann's they need to rule out every other possibly explanation for what happened. That will take time.

 Indeed - well said

Whether the money spent is worthy of the cause is too premature to say.

Expenditure is just THAT if there's no return.

The worth or otherwise of this cost depends ultimately on the outcome of this investigation.

If, in the finished, it leads to the arrest of Madeleine's perpetrators and the successful prosecution of them, then it would be well worth every penny.

If, it turns out just to be the biggest show in history of a phony investigation, then all hell will break loose.

loopzdaloop wrote:

tigger wrote:The cost is a factor in view of the absolute rubbish spouted by SY so far. 

This elite team coming hard on the heels of the 'soothing couple' and various other pantomime characters is not inspiring confidence. 

Why this publicity? So they are seen to be doing something for the money and time which could be better spent on other cases. 
You may add to these costs those incurred for the brief performance on behalf of  Kerry Needham. Which imo was purely to make it look like routine procedure for all children missing abroad.

Eta:  Assange is a waste of time,  space and money  as well - this smug creature will have to sort it out for himself.

 Publicity? what publicity? by who?

First question: 
How many public statements have Scotland Yard made? 

Second question:
Why should you, I or the man next door receive a running commentary in a criminal investigation? 

If you, I or the man next door receive a running commentary, that also means that anyone potentially responsible for the crime will know exactly what the police are up to. 

If these people responsible are also slippery, have the most expensive lawyers available on the planet and the ability to retrofit any explanation out of thin air to counter evidence then if they knew what to expect in interviews, there would be no point in the interview. 

I think it is absolutely ridiculous expectation that anyone should know what is happening in a criminal investigation. With a perspective I share with T4Two money should not be a factor in investigating crime otherwise the people with the money and the power (which are the minority in society) could get away with anything they like. 

Scotland Yard have been watertight in their investigation otherwise the Mccann's would be lording over this that and the other? In dealing with people like the Mccann's they need to rule out every other possibly explanation for what happened. That will take time.

 

I think that Marconi made a very good point about Interpol.


I assume that it was set up to allow police officer's to track down criminal's, whichever country they tried to flee to, when under suspicion of a crime.

Why all this rigmarole and delay in the McCann case and the, increasingly, obvious expense of it?


Now, look at the leveson enquiry.

The press, correctly IMO, said that all of the necessary safeguard's were in place, in law, to control them and that they could be held to account in a Court of Law, if they were suspected of breaking the law..

Why the need for the leveson enquiry and the obvious expense of it?


It was reported in the press recently, that cameron was shocked about an affair, that could de-rail the government's agenda.


What exactly is the government's agenda? Why does cameron not just allow the press to tell the truth, when the law's are already in place to punish them , if they do not do that?


Is he afraid of something, just like blair and brown, before him, were? Do you think any of them want the real truth to come out, or is it possible that they are just defending their own, very lucrative, position's?

Cameron has not funded the review of the Mccann investigation out of his own pocket. He put the burden upon other people. The taxpayer's.

Plenty of, "other people", donated money to the "Madeleine fund" out of their own pocket, after they had paid tax on it.  Those people deserve to be told the real truth, IMHO.
Just tell them the real truth dave. What, on earth, have you got to be afraid of?

loopzdaloop wrote:

tigger wrote:The cost is a factor in view of the absolute rubbish spouted by SY so far. 

This elite team coming hard on the heels of the 'soothing couple' and various other pantomime characters is not inspiring confidence. 

Why this publicity? So they are seen to be doing something for the money and time which could be better spent on other cases. 
You may add to these costs those incurred for the brief performance on behalf of  Kerry Needham. Which imo was purely to make it look like routine procedure for all children missing abroad.

Eta:  Assange is a waste of time,  space and money  as well - this smug creature will have to sort it out for himself.

 Publicity? what publicity? by who?

First question: 
How many public statements have Scotland Yard made? 

Second question:
Why should you, I or the man next door receive a running commentary in a criminal investigation? 

If you, I or the man next door receive a running commentary, that also means that anyone potentially responsible for the crime will know exactly what the police are up to. 

If these people responsible are also slippery, have the most expensive lawyers available on the planet and the ability to retrofit any explanation out of thin air to counter evidence then if they knew what to expect in interviews, there would be no point in the interview. 

I think it is absolutely ridiculous expectation that anyone should know what is happening in a criminal investigation. With a perspective I share with T4Two money should not be a factor in investigating crime otherwise the people with the money and the power (which are the minority in society) could get away with anything they like. 

Scotland Yard have been watertight in their investigation otherwise the Mccann's would be lording over this that and the other? In dealing with people like the Mccann's they need to rule out every other possibly explanation for what happened. That will take time.

In previous posts re SY I've stated quite clearly why I have no faith in this investigation.  

Up to April 2012 I had an open mind.
Then we had the  DCI Redwood appearing in short order in:
A Panorama documentary
On two separate morning shows

Stating that Maddie could be alive
That they cooperated closely with the parents
That the age advanced image was made with their active help
That they had 195  leads

We've just had a repeat of this performance in April and May and  an apparently cavalier treatment of the PJ in releasing information which the PJ were apparently not aware of.

I've said before that SY in particular Redwood had no business stating anything at all in an ongoing case.

LdL:  it's the very fact of SY's  having gone public that's made me lose faith.

I don't want a running commentary, I want them to do their job in total silence. To say nothing at all. It's too late for that now.

tigger

Thumbs up smiley.

Totally agree - the very fact that Redwood has appeared out of the thicket says it all.

Since the appointment of politically correct chief constables modern policing appears to be obsessed with public relations and all that goes with it. One can easily gain a completely wrong impression of how an investigation is proceeding when the only information available is the PR bilge being spouted by the police spokesman (or should I say spokesperson?) and speculation in the media. I recall the case of the young woman Jo Yeats who disappeared immediately before Christmas a year or so ago. At that time the spokesman for the police seemed more concerned about giving the public statistics on how many tons of rubbish the police had sifted through looking for a missing pizza, than solving the case itself. In fact together with the media they became so obsessed by that pizza that I dispaired of them ever solving the case at all, until suddenly they arrested the perpetrator on the basis of forensic evidence - nothing to do with the missing pizza whatsoever. Therefore as far as Scotland Yard are concerned I am not so perturbed about Redwood's TV appearances or the information/speculation in the media - they probably have very little to do with what is actually going on.

T4two wrote:Since the appointment of politically correct chief constables modern policing appears to be obsessed with public relations and all that goes with it. One can easily gain a completely wrong impression of how an investigation is proceeding when the only information available is the PR bilge being spouted by the police spokesman (or should I say spokesperson?) and speculation in the media. I recall the case of the young woman Jo Yeats who disappeared immediately before Christmas a year or so ago. At that time the spokesman for the police seemed more concerned about giving the public statistics on how many tons of rubbish the police had sifted through looking for a missing pizza, than solving the case itself. In fact together with the media they became so obsessed by that pizza that I dispaired of them ever solving the case at all, until suddenly they arrested the perpetrator on the basis of forensic evidence - nothing to do with the missing pizza whatsoever. Therefore as far as Scotland Yard are concerned I am not so perturbed about Redwood's TV appearances or the information/speculation in the media - they probably have very little to do with what is actually going on.

Wonderful! It makes me think of the First Golf War, when Saddam Houssain  and the whole world expected the american invasion coming from te sea, everything was pointing to that, and it came from Irak itself, American troops were already there.
Although as far as I know, there are no American troops in Rothley at the moment but who knows.

When the case was schelved, the arguido status was lifted.
If the case is re-opened, surely the arguido status should be reinstated?

Praiaaa wrote:When the case was schelved, the arguido status was lifted.
If the case is re-opened, surely the arguido status should be reinstated?

Only if they are going to be questioned - perhaps they`re not !

Going back to cost, there are missing people/bodies and parts of bodies all over the place still not found. Parts of Catherine Gowings' body was never found. April Jones body was never found, Keith Bennetts' body was never found, a landlord from a local pub who is believed to have fallen in the river at Conwy Harbour is still not found. A young boy murdered in Reddish Vale Stockport had only some body parts found, the rest of him remains missing.

The Police will spend an initial amount on a search but eventually that search has to be called off. I should imagine that only if new evidence comes to light will a search resume.

Cost does come into it. It always has.

Woofer wrote:

Praiaaa wrote:When the case was schelved, the arguido status was lifted.
If the case is re-opened, surely the arguido status should be reinstated?

Only if they are going to be questioned - perhaps they`re not !

Nothing has been said about the case being reopened. Some British newspapers talk about that, but as far as the PJ goes nobody mentioned reopening. That makes it so interesting as far as the legal powers are concerned.

T4two wrote:Since the appointment of politically correct chief constables modern policing appears to be obsessed with public relations and all that goes with it. One can easily gain a completely wrong impression of how an investigation is proceeding when the only information available is the PR bilge being spouted by the police spokesman (or should I say spokesperson?) and speculation in the media. I recall the case of the young woman Jo Yeats who disappeared immediately before Christmas a year or so ago. At that time the spokesman for the police seemed more concerned about giving the public statistics on how many tons of rubbish the police had sifted through looking for a missing pizza, than solving the case itself. In fact together with the media they became so obsessed by that pizza that I dispaired of them ever solving the case at all, until suddenly they arrested the perpetrator on the basis of forensic evidence - nothing to do with the missing pizza whatsoever. Therefore as far as Scotland Yard are concerned I am not so perturbed about Redwood's TV appearances or the information/speculation in the media - they probably have very little to do with what is actually going on.

I searched on Crime Watch about the pizza and my opinion is that it never vanished and the police was pointing to a non existence lead in order catch the perpetrator.  The perpetrator would feel better and more free to move around.
He called the police, giving them a suggestion, and it made me remember Kate's call to the PJ asking if they were investigating Murat.

marconi wrote:

T4two wrote:Since the appointment of politically correct chief constables modern policing appears to be obsessed with public relations and all that goes with it. One can easily gain a completely wrong impression of how an investigation is proceeding when the only information available is the PR bilge being spouted by the police spokesman (or should I say spokesperson?) and speculation in the media. I recall the case of the young woman Jo Yeats who disappeared immediately before Christmas a year or so ago. At that time the spokesman for the police seemed more concerned about giving the public statistics on how many tons of rubbish the police had sifted through looking for a missing pizza, than solving the case itself. In fact together with the media they became so obsessed by that pizza that I dispaired of them ever solving the case at all, until suddenly they arrested the perpetrator on the basis of forensic evidence - nothing to do with the missing pizza whatsoever. Therefore as far as Scotland Yard are concerned I am not so perturbed about Redwood's TV appearances or the information/speculation in the media - they probably have very little to do with what is actually going on.

I searched on Crime Watch about the pizza and my opinion is that it never vanished and the police was pointing to a non existence lead in order catch the perpetrator.  The perpetrator would feel better and more free to move around.
He called the police, giving them a suggestion, and it made me remember Kate's call to the PJ asking if they were investigating Murat.

There was a pizza, and the police were searching for the empty box. There was video footage of Jo buying the pizza, and a receipt for it. At the trial this was said:
"Nigel Lickley QC, prosecuting, said when detectives announced they were looking for a box of the pizza that Miss Yeates bought on the night she was last seen alive, Tabak began searching the internet to see when the rubbish had been collected in the Clifton area"
She walked home at about 8pm via a Bargain Booze shop and a local Tesco, picking up a mozzarella and basil 'Finest' pizza.

Mr Lickley said: "The pizza and its box have not been found. Joanna Yeates did not eat it.

"Vincent Tabak took it, as he did one of her socks. Why he took these items only he can say."

"

So, if everything is in place for a 'live' investigation between the PJ and SY does that mean that the case has been 'un-shelved' due to new evidence?
If that is the case the PJ/SY will be able to make the McCanns and 'friends' arguidos/arguidas won't they?
Indeed anyone that SY has identified as being of interest, in the files, can be too, can't they?
I mean Philomena and Trisha McCann will have no problem telling the new investigation who told them about the shutters being jemmied, won't they?
Could somebody tell me just exactly what did the 38 strong elite team DO yesterday, other than being on standby to go to Portugal, to justify the £6,160 they received in wages and costs yesterday?

"we spoke to witnesses who provided new evidence".
those are Redwood's words on his last interview.
he didn't say "new witnesses," which means that the Yard talked to witnesses that  already existed.
and that those already eixistend witnesses told the Met something new.
And based on that, the Yard will go to Algarve.

It can only be Tapas 7 or Tapas 10, 11 and 12. Or all of them.

There must be somebody there who knows about the grave.

marconi wrote:"we spoke to witnesses who provided new evidence".
those are Redwood's words on his last interview.
he didn't say "new witnesses," which means that the Yard talked to witnesses that  already existed.
and that those already eixistend witnesses told the Met something new.
And based on that, the Yard will go to Algarve.

It can only be Tapas 7 or Tapas 10, 11 and 12. Or all of them.

There must be somebody there who knows about the grave.

Lest you forget Redwood also states that  "the Mccanns & Co  are not Persons of Interest  or  Suspects."
Either you take his  every word literally, or you don't.  

Thus far he'd said that the Yard have 38 POI that needs further work, that Mccanns & friends are not amongst the 38.  

Might it be that he was being politically (and factually at that point in time) correct ?  

Did he say they (Mccanns & Co) were 'already ' eliminated by the Yard ?  Why not ?

Not amongst the 38 POI at that point in time does not mean they can't or won't become central of focus at a later time as the investigation develops or evolves, right ?

By logic of deduction I don't believe any of the Tapas 7 or anyone in their inner circle 'in the know' breaks their silence for a simple reason. Think about it !   Had the Yard begotten a confession from one of those in the group above mentioned, wouldn't they already have their answer and case solved ?   Why complicate or compound the complication roping in only not the British Authorities but also the Portugal Authorities to help, wasting time (and MONEY, yes Cost) trying to re-interview the 38 ?  

More importantly, Is the *suspect* (as in abductor) among the 38 ?  If not what's the purpose of this merry go around ?
On the hypothesis that the Yard hope to nab the abductor via info from the 38 POI surely it would be more pragmatic to carry out this operation in silence rather than publicising it, thus alerting the *snatcher* putting Madeleine's life at risk ?

IF, as the Yard said that they are working in  collaboration closely and regularly with the Mccanns, what exactly transpired between the collaboration ?
Did the Mccanns volunteer info to the MET that they withheld from PJ ?
Did they answer questions they refused to answer to the PJ ?
Did the Yard tell the Mccanns they are going to torture (figuratively speaking) the 38 POI to pry info out of them as to the whereabout of abductor or even better whereabout of Madeleine ?  

I don't believe that the Yard would keep Mccanns in the know on a live and ongoing investigation.  The collaboration the Yard mentioned is at most a courtesy exchange of communication in keeping with protocol rather than in-depth collaboration.

Watertight is the key if this operation is to stand the chance of bringing Madeleine's perpetrator/s to Court.

Is this colossal effort really necessary just to white wash a *dead-in-the -water*  case ?

IMV, at the worst case scenario the Yard might be left on the same page as the Portuguese, an impasse, despite knowing exactly what happened to her.

At the end of it all, realistically speaking, can the Yard come out to announce Maddie is alive but they haven't a clue who snatched her despite their BEST effort ?     Would that make sense to the Nation that the big boys (elite team) of the Yard came up empty handed in spite of all they'd done.

I do not believe the SY would be able to say Maddie is alive without evidence that she is. The only thing they could say is that she may be alive or dead and that has already been stated. If that is the case Britain will be even more of a laughing stock than it is now in the eyes of the World imo.

I'm thinking they cannot come out of this empty handed, no matter what.  They must say something.

If they veer towards abduction theory, that she might be alive, they will have to explain how they arrived at decision, else they would really look incompetent particularly considering elite team was deployed to do a comprehensive special commissioned review and investigation.

If there is no evidence to support abduction, then what exactly happened  ?

In the finished, be what it may be, they will have to explain how they arrived at their conclusion. Interesting times ahead anyway.

If this investigation is not over before this year is out then I will lose all hope that someone will be prosecuted for this crime.
To me, the Yard should already have solved it and now finalising foolproof evidence to a closure.
It's only a question of time before closed-end investigation will end or yield desired result, while open-end investigation could drag into eternity to no avail.

Cost is always a factor in a protracted and prolonged investigation so if this is not done and dealt with within six months, it does not bode well. All IMO anyway.

aiyoyo wrote:I'm thinking they cannot come out of this empty handed, no matter what.  They must say something.

If they veer towards abduction theory, that she might be alive, they will have to explain how they arrived at decision, else they would really look incompetent particularly considering elite team was deployed to do a comprehensive special commissioned review and investigation.

If there is no evidence to support abduction, then what exactly happened  ?

In the finished, be what it may be, they will have to explain how they arrived at their conclusion.  Interesting times ahead anyway.

If this investigation is not over before this year is out then I will lose all hope that someone will be prosecuted for this crime.
To me, the Yard should already have solved it and now finalising foolproof evidence to a closure.  
It's only a question of time before closed-end investigation will end or yield desired result, while open-end investigation could drag into eternity to no avail.  

Cost is always a factor in a protracted and prolonged investigation so if this is not done and dealt with within six months, it does not bode well.  All IMO anyway.

And if they veer towards abduction, the successive British governments who refused to get involved during the years of "there is no official investigation, we have to do this on our own" are not going to come out of this very well for doing nothing while a child may have languished at the hands of captors, or worse.

I cannot see why David Cameron invested so much public money into reviewing this case if a cover up was intended.  A formal review was destined to open up a whole can of worms.  It makes no sense. It would have been much simpler for him to say no, especially in these times of austerity. The fact that the review has now moved on to become a formal investigation can only complicate things further especially as it involves another country and another police force.

Monty Heck wrote:

aiyoyo wrote:I'm thinking they cannot come out of this empty handed, no matter what.  They must say something.

If they veer towards abduction theory, that she might be alive, they will have to explain how they arrived at decision, else they would really look incompetent particularly considering elite team was deployed to do a comprehensive special commissioned review and investigation.

If there is no evidence to support abduction, then what exactly happened  ?

In the finished, be what it may be, they will have to explain how they arrived at their conclusion.  Interesting times ahead anyway.

If this investigation is not over before this year is out then I will lose all hope that someone will be prosecuted for this crime.
To me, the Yard should already have solved it and now finalising foolproof evidence to a closure.  
It's only a question of time before closed-end investigation will end or yield desired result, while open-end investigation could drag into eternity to no avail.  

Cost is always a factor in a protracted and prolonged investigation so if this is not done and dealt with within six months, it does not bode well.  All IMO anyway.

And if they veer towards abduction, the successive British governments who refused to get involved during the years of "there is no official investigation, we have to do this on our own" are not going to come out of this very well for doing nothing while a child may have languished at the hands of captors, or worse.

Don't forget that the "workorder" was to investigate as if the abduction had taken place in the UK.

Not "see if an abduction took place", not "an open mind", no: "to investigate as if the abduction had taken place in the UK".

It is not a matter of if they arrive at the conclusion it was an abduction, it is their working platform.